Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotations, discloses the exact contents of each version, the newest-first ordering, a separate ONNX download endpoint, the 404 not_released state, read-scope credential requirement, and the claimed-workspace 403 behavior. This is unusually rich behavioral context for a read-only tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loads the core purpose and then packs return details, endpoint exclusion, error state, and auth prerequisites into a short paragraph with no obvious filler. Despite the density, every sentence carries operational value for a tool with no output schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return shape, and it does by naming the version fields. Combined with annotations covering read-only safety and the description covering auth and error states, nothing material is missing for a one-parameter getter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single model_id parameter is fully documented there as the id from list_hosted_models. The description adds no syntax or selection guidance beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (one hosted pricing model plus its versions), and enumerates the version-level fields returned. The phrase 'one' versus the sibling list_hosted_models makes the single-record scope clear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides required credential scope, claimed-workspace prerequisite, and the 404 not_released condition, so an agent knows when it can call and what failure to expect. It does not explicitly name list_hosted_models as the alternative for enumerating models, so the alternative routing is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.